[Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: nc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu           |rvokal at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-03 18:09 EST -------
Where does the tarball come from?  Upstream doesn't seem to have any actual
tarball abailable for download.  If it's from a CVS checkout, can you detail
in the spec (or in a script) how you do the checkout, and name the tarball and
choose the release appropriately based on the checkout date as detailed in the
naming guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines

Basically, the version-release pair should be something like
1.84-11.20070203cvs.  If you're checking out a tag, I'm not sure what the best
way to name it is.

Or perhaps we could consider whether or not one of the other netcat variants
is a better choice.

Rpmlint has a few complaints:

W: nc summary-ended-with-dot Reads and writes data across network connections using TCP or UDP.
W: nc summary-ended-with-dot Reads and writes data across network connections using TCP or UDP.
  Easy to fix these up.

W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/alta /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/bsh /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/dist.sh /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/irc /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/iscan /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/ncp /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/probe /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/web /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/webproxy /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/webrelay /bin/sh
W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/websearch /bin/sh
  Documentation shouldn't be executable.

Review:
X I can't check whether the source files match upstream.
X package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
X build root is not correct; should be
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X license field matches the actual license.
   I can find no mention of the GPL; this looks to me to be more like the X11
   license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text not included upstream.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.  The requirement for pkgconfig is unnecessary,
  though, as glib2-devel requires it.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %makeinstall is not used.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   nc = 1.84-10.fc7
  =
   /bin/sh
   glib2
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.